“Why the World is the
Way It Is: Cultural Relativism and It’s Descendents”by Dr. Edward Younkins Professor of Accountancy
and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia
and author of Capitalism and Commerce.Relativism, the idea that
truth is a historically conditioned notion that does not transcend cultural
boundaries, has existed since the Greek era, some 2400 years ago. Relativism
contends that all truth is relative except for the claim that “truth is
relative.”Cultural relativism wrongly
claims that each culture has its own distinct but equally valid mode of
perception, thought, and choice. Cultural relativism, the opposite of the
idea that moral truth is universal and objective, contends there is no
such thing as absolute right and wrong. There is only right and wrong as
specified by the moral code of each society. Within a particular society,
a standard of right and wrong can be inviolate. Cultural relativism maintains
that man’s opinion within a given culture defines what is right and wrong.Cultural relativism is the
mistaken idea that there are no objective standards by which our society
can be judged because each culture is entitled to its own beliefs and accepted
practices. No one can object to any society’s intolerance that reflects
its indigenous worldview. Because there is no objective moral truth that
pertains to all people and for all times, one moral code is no better or
no worse than any other (i.e., the moral equivalence doctrine). Thus, we
should not impose our values on other societies. It follows that, according
to cultural relativism, we cannot object to Hitler and Nazism, Mayan infant
sacrifice, China’s massacre of students in Tiananmen Square, South Africa’s
apartheid, genital mutilation (i.e., female circumcision) of young girls
in Africa, and so on, because each of these practices is justified by the
worldview within which it exists. Nor could we contend that one culture
is superior to another culture. In addition, we would also be prevented
from criticizing our own culture’s practices such as slavery. Further-more,
within the perspective of cultural relativism, there would be no need for,
or argument for, social progress. Toward what objective goal would we progress?Multiculturalism, racism,
postmodernism, deconstructionism, political correctness, and social engineering
are among cultural relativism’s “intellectual” descendents. The remainder
of the chapter addresses the philosophical underpinnings of these movements,
analyzes each of them, and explains why Western culture is objectively
superior to other cultures.Philosophical Roots and
Development of Cultural Relativism and Its DescendentsRelativism, the view that
truth is different for each individual, social group, or historic period,
had its beginnings during the ancient Greek period. However, it was David
Hume (1711-1776) whose clear and rigorous formulation of this worldview
made it an important idea in the Modern period. Hume argued for moral relativism
because no one can know anything for certain. Consequently, a person is
unable to pass judgment on alternative moral systems. Hume’s skepticism
claims that neither reason nor the senses can supply reliable knowledge
and that, consequently, man is a helpless being in an unintelligible universe. Hume attempted to
destroy the concept of causality in the objective world. He argued that
because all of our knowledge comes from experience, we couldn’t have any
knowledge of causality because we do not experience causality. According
to Hume, what we refer to as causality is simply our habit of associating
events because of experiencing them together, but this does not mean that
the events have any necessary connection. Experiences of contiguity, priority,
and constant conjunction do not imply a necessary connection between objects.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
agreed with Hume regarding the inability to see or prove causality in the
objective (i.e., noumenal) world, but said that people will always experience
the world in causal networks because causality is a feature of the subjective
(i.e., phenomenal) world. Kant believed that men are cut off from the objective
world and can never know the world in itself (i.e., as it is). However,
the human mind has fundamental concepts, categories, or filters built into
it through which man cognizes the world. Men structure the world that they
experience so that it conforms to the human mind. Therefore, men never
know things in themselves (i.e., as they really are) only as they appear
given the method of man’s cognitive operations. Reality as perceived by
man’s mind is distorted according to the nature of man’s conceptual faculty.Man’s basic concepts (e.g.,
causality, time, space, entity, quality, quantity, etc.) do not stem from
experience or reality but from an automatic system of concepts, categories,
and filters in his consciousness which impose their own design on his perceptions
of external reality and render him unable of perceiving it in any way other
than the way in which he does perceive it.Imagine that every human
is born with red organic lenses in his eyes through which he sees the world.
The world would appear red even though red is not a feature of the objective
world in itself. Red is a feature of the subjective world. The functions
of the mind’s filters are analogous to that of such lenses.Kant said that we see the
world in terms of entities because we have an entity category built into
our minds. For that same reason, we experience the world in terms of a
system of causal networks. We can’t know what is really out there in the
objective world.Kant’s epistemological dualism
states that there is an object in itself and the same object as it appears
to us (i.e., as filtered through our epistemological apparatus). Kant holds
that the mind is concurrently both helpless and creatively powerful. It
is helpless with respect to knowing the objective world but it is omnipotent
regarding the social world (i.e., the world as created by the human mind).
Reality becomes social because people create reality.According to Kant, there
is only one type of human mind that is universally the same (except for
individual idiosyncrasies that occur because of our humanity and hence
imperfection). Each person has the same categories and thus constructs
the world in the same way. As members of the same species, we each have
the same processing apparatus.Kant contended that reality
(as far as we can know it) depends on the cognitive functioning of the
human mind in total. Society sets the norms of truth and falsity and right
and wrong. This is the essence of Kant’s social primacy of consciousness
theory in metaphysics. Man’s ideas are essentially a collective delusion
from which no person has the power to escape. If a man sees things differently
than the majority, then he must be mistaken due to some defect in his own
information processing mechanism. Since and because of Kant, “objectivity”
is generally thought to mean collective subjectivism. Truth, to the extent
that it can be known in the phenomenal world, is to be determined by means
of public polls.Kant believed that man’s
categories were unchangeable. Contrariwise, Hegel (1770-1831) argued that
they evolve and change and that evolution is essential to understanding
consciousness, history, and mankind. Marx (1818-1883) claimed that they
changed differentially according to economic subgroups. This fragmentation
or pluralization of Kant’s social subjectivism has ultimately developed
to the point where today’s multiculturalists claim that groups create their
own reality based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc.Each multicultural subgroup
has its own reality, its own logic, its own truth and falsity, and its
own right and wrong. It is therefore impossible to discuss, argue, or judge
any one group’s truth as better than any other. With no way to reason among
the groups, the only alternatives are either isolationism or group warfare
through which political power is used to slug out group differences.Rousseau (1712-1778) held
that reason had its opportunity but had failed, claiming that the act of
reflection is contrary to nature. Rousseau asserts that man’s natural goodness
has been depraved by the progress he has made and the knowledge he has
acquired. He proceeded to attack the Age of Reason by emphasizing feeling,
the opposite of reason, as the key to reality and the future. His thought
thereby foreshadowed and gave impetus to the Romantic Movement.Following Kant and Rousseau,
the romanticists believed that reason is limited to the surface world of
appearance, and that man’s true source of knowledge is feeling, intuition,
passion, or faith. In their view, man is essentially an emotional being
and therefore must seek the truth and act accordingly. The virtuous individual
was a “man of feeling” who was sensitive to the plights of others and who
spontaneously exhibited sympathy, pity, and benevolence to them.Godwin (1756-1836) had a
profound sense of egalitarianism. He believed that it was desirable and
just for the output of society, to which all contribute, to be shared among
all with some degree of equalization. He viewed the differences among individuals
as being the product of different social circumstances, not in inherent
differences in people’s abilities. Although he realized that some differences
were the results of inheritance, he firmly believed that proper environmental
structuring could overcome any inherent inequalities.Nietzsche (1844-1900) contended
that feeling and intuition are actually forms of reason and viewed the
universe as a realm of colliding wills and violent conflict. He also held
the view that a few superbeings (supermen or overmen) who were “beyond
good and evil” had the right to rule the masses for their own higher purposes.
These exceptional individuals, possessing the highest level of development
of intellectual, physical, and emotional strength, would possess the courage
to revalue all values and act with freedom to their internal Will to Power.
As a result, the lowest levels of society would believe themselves to be
exploited and oppressed and would experience a deep-rooted resentment.
The result would be a negative psychic attitude, a will to the denial of
life, and revenge in the form of translating the virtues of the superior
into vices.Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
said that truth is subjectivity and that authentic existence is a matter
of faith and commitment. In turn, Heidegger (1899-1976) maintained that
(1) man is “thrown into the world”; (2) existence is unintelligible; (3)
reason is invalid; (4) man is a creature in fear of the primary fact
of his life—death; and (5) man is destined by his nature to “angst,” estrangement,
and futility. Heidegger’s oftentimes-unintelligible writings can be described
as the intellectual counterpart of modern art.This brief review of philosophy
has identified the roots of many of today’s prevalent concepts, including
relativism, social subjectivism, collectivism, determinism, pluralism,
economic egalitarianism, irrationalism, elitism, and the will to power,
resentment, and historical victimization. These are the concepts that underlie,
in varying proportions, the various intellectual descendents of cultural
relativism.MulticulturalismThe main idea of multiculturalism
is the equal value of all cultures (i.e., cultural relativism). However,
multiculturalism does not mean cultures as normally understood but rather
as biologically defined (i.e., ethnically, racially, or sexually defined)
groups. Multiculturalism, a politicized form of cultural relativism, rejects
the idea that there are general truths, norms, or rules with respect to
both knowledge and morals. Gone are the Enlightenment beliefs in objectivity,
reason and evidence, and principles of freedom and justice that apply equally
to all individuals. Unlike cultural relativism, multiculturalism excludes
one worldview from the realm of equally valid worldviews—the Eurocentric
Western perspective based on the contributions of dead white males. Multiculturalists
dismiss the significance of Western civilization by claiming that Western
traditions of elitism, racism, and sexism are the cause of most of our
current problems. They accept a Romantic view of human nature as beneficent
and benign until it was corrupted by flawed Western ideology and culture.Multiculturalism implies
that race, ethnicity, and sex (or sexual preference) have an inescapable
effect on the way people think and/or the values they hold or are capable
of holding. There are many closed systems of perception, thought, and feeling
each affiliated with some biologically defined group. Rational dialogue
among individuals from different groups is precluded because each group
has its own “truth” and standards for its attainment. The multiculturalist
maintains that each person is simply a representative of a particular biologically
defined perspective who must agree with his own group’s worldview (unless
he wants to be ostracized) and thus be unable to rationally discuss and
meaningfully evaluate and critique ideas with representatives of other
groups. Multiculturalism thus destroys an individual’s confidence in his
own mind—this occurs when a person allows his group to tell him what to
believe.At one time, truth was viewed
as transcendent, fixed, and unchanging. Epistemological egalitarianism
has accompanied the loss of transcendence. Each group of persons now is
thought to have an equal right to make truth claims. Think of the absurdity
in which unreflected upon opinions are weighted equally with well-thought-out
opinions in today’s numerous opinion polls that tend to be tabulated according
to biologically defined categories. Truth is now thought to be a constructed
cultural product that is immanent in each individual culture or subgroup.
For the multiculturalist, truth only exists by consensus within each biologically
defined group.Multiculturalism is anti-individualistic
in the sense that it expects each person to agree with the perceptions,
thoughts, and judgments of his group in order for his own perceptions,
thoughts, and judgments to be legitimate. The multiculturalist believes
that a person’s thoughts are either the collectively constructed thoughts
of his racial, ethnic, or sexual group or are the thoughts foisted upon
him by the dominant white male worldview. A ruling premise of multiculturalism
is that ethnic origin carries with it irrevocable attributes—if a person
has a certain name and physical features, then he must have a particular
perspective on life and the world. Multiculturalists assign each rational
and autonomous individual into a group based on the group’s specific, absolute,
and nondebatable dissemblances from other groups. Multiculturalism attempts
to replace individual rights with collectivism by assuming that a man’s
identity and value are derived solely from biology, and that what is important
is not what a person does as an individual, but rather what some members
of his biological group currently do or did years ago. It follows that
collective guilt replaces individual responsibility—a person must assume
the responsibility for acts committed by his ancestors and pay for these
acts ad infinitum.The victim mentality is
both a cause and effect of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism promotes
a culture of victims who have a perpetual claim on society and the government.
The result is the division of society into political interest groups with
conflicting demands that cannot all be met.Educational proposals from
multiculturalists attempt to inculcate in students the idea that Western
classical liberal order is, in fact, the most oppressive order of all times.
As a result, people are taught to view themselves as victims. This perspective
is based on the relativistic assumption that because all cultures are inherently
equal, differences in wealth, power, and accomplishments between cultures
are, for the most part, due to oppression. Thus, in order to establish
cultural equality, multiculturalists emphasizing non-Western virtues and
Western oppression dismiss the illiberal traditions of other cultures and
attack the ideas of a common culture based on an intellectual, moral, and
artistic legacy derived from the Greeks and the Bible.There would be no harm in
multiculturalism if the term simply meant that we should acknowledge and
teach truths about many cultures. It is admirable to teach students both
the noblest aspects of various cultures and of their failings. Unfortunately,
multiculturalism’s pluralism and relativism has engendered a reluctance
to acknowledge anything positive about Western culture while concurrently
maintaining a nonreflective and approving position toward non-Western and
minority ideas. Students are taught that no “properly educated” person
would be willing to pass judgment on another culture. If a student should
deny the equality of all cultures he would be told he was guilty of “ethnocentrism.”Multicultural educational
policies are based on the mistaken notion that cultures consist of mostly
benign characteristics. In actual fact, there are both laudable and condemnable
aspects of all cultures. Once it is recognized that different cultures
exhibit varying degrees of good and evil, it becomes appropriate to inquire
which culture exhibits the best characteristics on an overall basis. Some
cultures are better than others: reason is better than force; a free society
is superior to slavery; and productivity is better than stagnation.Multiculturalists argue
that education can build the self-esteem of minority students by presenting
non-Western cultures in a favorable light in order to compensate for historical
and curricular injustices, thereby restoring cultural parity between ethnic
groups. Replacing education with therapy, the multiculturalist attempts
to enhance self-esteem by teaching the students of oppressed cultures to
be proud of their particular ancestry or race. This will only work if there
are laudable truths that can be taught about a student’s ethnic heritage.
When education is turned into therapy, the likely result is to teach history
not to ascertain truth but to empower (i.e., enhance the self-esteem) of
various factions. The result is the introduction of distortions, half-truths,
fabrications, and myths into the curriculum in order to make students from
certain groups feel good. In addition, multiculturalists denounce the emphasis
in American schools on American history and culture and western civilization.
Some even portray western civilization and Americans as evil and ideas
such as reason and objective truth as Eurocentric (and patriarchal for
the feminist) biases with the purpose of exploiting oppressed cultures.Academic standards of excellence
are of no use to the multiculturalist because they are simply means through
which the dominant culture oppresses minority cultures. Not only are objective
tests denounced as racist, multiculturalists demand that students be graded
only within their cultural or racial group and/or that tests be redesigned
so that minority students perform on the average as well as those in the
dominant cultural group.Students are instructed
that there are no objective merits or failings of theories, arguments,
policies, works of art, and literature, etc. Instead, they are only valorizations
of power that require deconstruction in order to reveal their true nature
as devices of repression. It is Marxism that has provided multiculturalism
with its rationale and concepts (e.g., oppression, imperialism, inequality,
revolutionary change) that are used to devalue and destroy American culture. The goal of the multiculturalist
is to change the United States from a culturally assimilated society to
an unassimilated multicultural society with a wide range of cultures and
subcultures accorded equal status. Multiculturalism promotes quotas rather
than competition, allocating resources rather than earning them, and a
cabinet that looks like America instead of one that has an adequate background
to do the required job. Multiculturalists fail to see that the diversity
methods they use to find and create diversity will, in fact, divide the
country. The result will be a widespread, societal tendency toward hatred,
revenge, or belief in the innate superiority of one’s group and a feeling
of solidarity and self-righteousness.RacismRacism, a type of multiculturalism,
is the erroneous idea that a person’s race determines his identity. It
is the belief that one’s values, beliefs, and character are determined
by one’s ancestry rather than by the judgments of one’s mind. In the name
of diversity and multiculturalism many Americans are taught to base their
sense of self in their racial or ethnic identity. In fact, “critical race
theory” contends that there is no reality independent of a person’s ethnicity,
no universal rules of logic, and no objective facts. Accordingly, each
person is destined to interpret events according to the sentiments of his
racial group. Such an attack on reason creates a herd mentality by which
people thoughtlessly follow those who proclaim themselves to be the leaders.Racial preference is the
common ingredient of the diversity movement (i.e., diversity awareness,
training, hiring, admissions, accommodations, etc.). Proponents do not
realize that racism cannot be cured with more racism. When people are taught
to think in racial terms instead of according to individual merit and character,
and groups are identified as having special status (e.g., affirmative action
programs), the logical result is likely to be warranted resentment and
indignation.Obviously, the rational
and proper approach is to evaluate candidates based on individual merit.
This simply means appraising candidates based on their possession of relevant
knowledge and skills, their willingness to exert the requisite effort,
and their possession of a good moral character.The diversity movement states
that its purpose is to eradicate racism and produce tolerance of differences.
This is a pretense. A person cannot teach that identity is determined by
race and then expect people to view each other as individuals. The idea
of deriving one’s identity from one’s race is depraved. People have competent
minds, efficacious intellects, and free wills that enable them to be judged
as individuals.A person cannot inherit
moral virtue or moral vice. Think of the absurdity of recent proposals
for apologies and compensation on behalf of America and the U.S. government
to Afro-Americans whose ancestors suffered as slaves. This proposal assumes
that whites today, who have never owned slaves, are almost universally
against racism, and who bear no individual responsibility for slavery,
somehow hold a “collective responsibility” solely by being members of the
same race as the slave owners of the Old South. A person who is a member
of a certain race cannot legitimately be blamed for the deeds of other
members of that race unless people are simply interchangeable cogs within
a racial collective. Compensation for slavery means randomly chastising
today’s whites by taxing them and denying them jobs, promotions, and admissions
to schools through welfare and affirmative action programs, in order to
reward chance blacks. Individuals should be judged based on their own actions.
They should be rewarded on their own merits and should not be compelled
to apologize or pay for acts committed by others, simply because those
others are of the same race.Individualism is the only
acceptable alternative to racism. It is essential to recognize that each
person is a sovereign entity with the power of independent judgment and
choice.Political CorrectnessMulticulturalism leads to
politically correct language. Such language must be consistent with multiculturalist
principles. This means that language should: (1) not favor one group over
another; (2) not infringe on any group’s right to sovereignty; (3) not
interfere with the peaceful relationship of any minority group with those
from other groups; (4) not hinder society (i.e., the state) in its attempts
to protect cultural groups (i.e., social, economic, and ethnic minorities)
whose views are declared to be equally valid and who have the “right” to
equal opportunity, integrity, and point of view; and (5) not promote stereotypes
of any kind.The obsession of the morally
superior, sensitive, and conspicuously compassionate elite with the subjective
feelings of people is part of today’s prevailing therapeutic vision of
man. This infatuation with sensitivity has spread throughout the media
and academia, leading to the creation of feel-good euphemisms which part
with accuracy and unambiguity in the interest of feeling and sympathy.
Unfortunately, these “linguistic smile buttons” simply camouflage reality
rather than change it.Advocates of political correctness
attempt to homogenize our language and thought not only to enhance the
self-esteem of minorities, women, and beneficiaries of the welfare state
but also to preserve the moral image of the welfare state itself. One approach
to reaching this goal is to eliminate disparaging, discriminatory, or offensive
words and phrases and the substitutions of harmless vocabulary at the expense
of economy, clarity, and logic. Another approach is to deconstruct a word
or phrase into its component parts, treat the component parts as wholes,
and focus on secondary meanings of the component parts. For example, the
term mankind is said to be exclusive, misleading, and biased when it is
employed to refer to both men and women.The politically correct
fail to understand that language is the result of an evolved social process
that results in a systemic order achieved without the use of a deliberate
overall plan. Language simply arises out of accidents, experiences, and
historical borrowings and corruptions of other languages. No one intended
to exclude women when generic terms like he or mankind were
used. With respect to human beings, the male gender was used to denote
the species. On the other hand, both countries and ships are referred to
as she. Using he or she or him or her simply
clutters the language and conveys no further information. However, such
use does imply that those who use the masculine terms hold hostile or exclusionary
thoughts toward women! This leads people to believe that every use of generic
male terms is evidence of male antagonism toward women when, in fact, such
usage merely avoids awkward phrases and cluttered language.Political correctness supplies
a language through which it is easy to be a victim and always someone or
something that can be blamed. Think of terms like culturally deprived,
developmentally challenged, etc. Political correctness involves
a lot of people attempting to explain the reasons for their lack of great
success. These victim-type explanations or excuses generally include the
idea that a person is having a rough time because of his particular race
or gender. Essentially, political correctness is a way to rationalize who
you are and why you are not better than what or who you are.Victims are taught that
their failures and suffering are invariably the result of some unfair and
rectifiable condition that social engineers could remedy if the insensitive
would simply let them. This reinforces the erroneous views that human life
is perfectible and that all suffering is a deviation that can be corrected.
People are led to believe that the world should be a place where they never
suffer disappointment or failure. Of course, the tragic truth is that people
can fail and that individuals are unequal in talents and achievements.On some campuses seeking
higher standards of human accomplishments is no longer valued as highly
as politically correct thinking. Academic freedom through free speech is
accompanied by high social costs on campuses, where truth is viewed as
nothing more than different perspectives being offered by different groups
in order to promote their own interests. Education-imposed biases restrict
students’ thinking when curricula are developed to be nonsexist, peace
centered, antibiased, and politically correct.Political correctness (and
multiculturalism) threatens free speech in both the academic sphere and
the nonacademic workplace and ultimately the very foundation of American
society. The government has, in essence, eliminated most free speech protection
in the workplace. Free speech, which is an economic good to academics through
which they make their living, has fared somewhat better in the educational
world.Broadly conceived, political
correctness includes a number of initiatives such as: altering vocabularies
in order not to offend particular groups, affirmative action in admissions
and hiring, multicultural education, and broadening the scope of classical
texts to include those written by minority authors and women. Then there
are the workshops in which people are taught by “experts” how to be attuned
to others’ feelings and how to avoid being found guilty of “sexual harassment,”
“racial insensitivity,” and so on.DeconstructionismDeconstruction denotes a
political practice of trying to devalue and dismantle the logic by which
a specific system of thought preserves its integrity. Deconstructionists
claim that words are inadequate for defining reality. They argue that language,
particularly in written form, intercedes between the reader and the ideas.According to deconstructionists,
everything is simply perspectival appearance and there is not a fixed way
of discerning linguistic meaning. It follows that when critics analyze
a work of literature, they do not analyze what the writer originally meant
but rather what the reader interprets from the work.Deconstructionists, as critics
of text and language, try to understand how the media and vocabulary used
to represent ideas fail to mean the same thing to all people. As the idea
of author has lost its significance, there is no longer a need to determine
what the meaning was in its original context. Instead, the reader’s context
becomes paramount.After the idea of objective
and attainable truth has been discredited as myth, there is no longer confidence
in truth that is obtainable through reason. Deconstructionists argue that
reason is simply an attempt at “metanarrative” (i.e., an attempt to control
societal values). Literature and language become means of promoting ideology
as each group represents its own worldview. They become means for enforcing
a specific ideology on others for the purpose of exploitation.PostmodernismAccording to postmodernism,
reality is socially constructed and pluralism is a fact of life. Postmodernists
exhibit disbelief in metanarratives in a myriad of areas such as literary
criticism, political theory, music, architecture, etc. They display disdain
for the modern ideas of rationality, linear progress, and one right way
to do things. Postmodernists find fault with systems of thought that try
to explain the world, its social and natural laws, its true morality, the
path of history, and the nature of the human person, in universal terms
that apply equally to all people in all times and places.Postmodernism tends to revolve
around the following themes: (1) the attainment of universal truth is impossible;
(2) no ideas or truths are transcendent; (3) all ideas are culturally or
socially constructed; (4) historical facts are unimportant and irrelevant;
and (5) ideas are true only if they benefit the oppressed. Postmodernists
generally use Marxist rationale and concepts (e.g., oppression, inequality,
revolution, and imperialism) to attack and discredit American culture.Postmodernism brings metaphysics,
ontology, epistemology, and ethics to an end because these types of study
assume a fixed, universal reality. Postmodernism denies the basis for knowing
anything except itself. Consequently, postmodernists proclaim a universal
tolerance of all ideas. Ironically, the result is a philosophy that accepts
only local truths (rather than universal truths), thereby dividing people
according to race, gender, locality, etc. The result of this division is
an intolerance that is exhibited in racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. When
various peoples’ truths are different depending upon the differences between
them, then the differences between them cannot be overlooked—they are too
important.Postmodernism encompasses
the idea that people tell stories in order to explain the world. None of
these stories is reality but are simply representations of reality based
on incomplete and often inaccurate information. There are a variety of
socially constructed realities, belief systems, and stories that attempt
to explain the world. People construct stories that seem to fit the information
at their disposal. This is analogous to Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigm
shifts in science. When experiments yield evidence that does not fit the
reigning paradigm, then eventually a new paradigm that better explains
the evidence at hand is adopted. Postmodernism can be evidenced
in the following instances. Some scientists believe that there is no one
self; rather the self is a changing socially constructed reality. Other
scientists now contend that one of the brain’s functions is to tell stories
(even with only few facts and frequently without the use of logic) in an
effort to make sense of the world. Literary criticism is thought by many
to find meaning in the reader’s experience—the reader creates the book’s
reality. In turn, literary deconstructionists debate the idea of representing
anything with words. Postmodernists tend to view the world as theater in
which we are all competing spin-meisters. For example, political leaders
try to get their story told by the media and believed by the people. In
law, many scholars dismiss the idea of permanent legal principles. In psychology,
a method for treating people involves the creation of a new life story
for them (i.e., putting a different spin on their circumstances). Postmodernists are unified
in their repudiation of universal truths. They then depart from their commonality
to join various factions in order to participate in the debate. The deconstructionists
were discussed earlier in this chapter. Constructionists, realizing that
we can’t universally know objective reality, contend that we can construct
or define it in any manner we choose. Then there are the pragmatists who
contend that the lack of universal truths is sufficient reason to retreat
to one’s own local community—people should stay with the beliefs and concepts
that they are capable of knowing, those natural to their own cultural group.Postmodernists are constantly
redefining themselves and are searching for new meaning. As problem finders
and problem solvers, they tend to reduce life (and especially political
and social issues) to problems and solutions. They also like to engage
in zero-base thinking, dismissing the systemically evolved knowledge of
the ages.The Philosophy of Social
Engineering: A Recent Descendent of Cultural RelativismThe philosophy of social
engineering, as reflected in contemporary civil rights policies and agendas,
is primarily based on five concepts: collectivism, determinism, economic
egalitarianism, elitism, and historical victimization. Multiculturalism,
a merger of collectivism and determinism, asserts that no person can avoid
the forces imposed by race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Fortunately, according
to the proponents of social engineering, there exists an elite able to
remedy historical victimization. Undergirding the philosophy of social
engineering is the idea that all individuals should be economically equal.
When equality does not exist, it must be due to exploitation and discriminatory
exclusion. Consequently, the elite needs to act through the legal and educational
systems in order to establish the economic equality that would have existed
in the absence of exploitation and domination.The elite includes individuals
and groups who far exceed the general population in intellect, morality,
and dedication to the “common good.” Their general superiority enables
them to use their articulated rationality to function as surrogate decision
makers in governmental economic and social planning. Their special wisdom,
knowledge, virtue, compassion, commitment, and intentions qualify them
to guide the actions of the many either through articulation or force.
Because the elite tend to assume that human nature is infinitely malleable,
they attempt to mold the nature of the people according to their superior
judgments and advanced views.Unfortunately for its advocates,
the philosophy of social engineering is irrational and inconsistent. Collectivism
represents nothing that exists in reality. Only individuals, with countless
differences and experiences, can think and act. Although persons can share
biological characteristics, they will differ in numerous other ways that
are necessary to their identities as individual persons. If determinism
is valid, then elitism is infeasible because elites would be affected by
causal factors just like everyone else. To propose that they would be exempt
from such control would contradict the idea of determinism. In addition,
economic egalitarianism is inconsistent with determinism. If determinism
is true, then the nonegalitarian status of today’s world is simply unavoidable.
It is purely the consequence of historical determinants whose effects could
not be different from what they are. Egalitarianism is also denied by the
notion of elitism that acknowledges the existence of a caste of individuals
who are more intelligent and possesses superior moral understanding. Finally,
the idea of victimization loses its plausibility if both collectivism and
determinism have been dismissed as irrational.In his Tyranny of Reason,
Yuval Levin explains that the social scientific outlook holds that society
and man can be understood through scientific study and that truth in the
social world is essentially no different than truth found by science in
nature. This failure to recognize that human beings are fundamentally different
from the physical objects examined by science and the inappropriate application
of scientific reasoning by arrogant social engineers and technocrats can
have devastating consequences, including the limitation of man’s freedom
in thought and action and the devaluation of a man’s search for meaning
in his life.Confused students of politics
and society have attempted to apply the same rules and standards to both
the natural world and the social world and have searched for a precise
rational formula behind the social behavior of men. So-called experts fail
to realize that scientific thinking seeks meaning in causes existing in
the past, whereas human beings make decisions based on purposes reaching
toward the future. Because the world of science is a world of causes, not
of purposes, it cannot answer the “why” question. The human world cannot
be adequately described in terms of causes without purposes and means without
ends.Approaching the human world
from the perspective of scientific certainty constrains man’s freedom,
robs people of a sense of control, and encourages people to hand over their
fates to social engineers who believe in the inevitable progress of mankind
and in their own superior ability to discover, comprehend, and predict
the proper arrangement of society and the underlying truths of the human
world. Of course, the knowledge needed by these social architects and constructivists
is unattainable––the best we can achieve is partial knowledge of the human
world.Determinism arises naturally
from the social scientific outlook. The belief in determinism leads people
to think that they have no active role to play in controlling their own
futures. Utopian social scientists tend to have contempt for deliberative
politics and participatory democracy and to prefer the neutral scientific
manager, central planning, social engineering, and government control of
the economy.Western Culture Is Objectively
SuperiorToday, many intellectuals
claim that Western culture is not any better (some say it is worse) than
other cultures. In addition, they argue that there are no objective standards
that can be used to evaluate the moral merit or demerit of various cultures.In reality, the superiority
of Western culture can be objectively demonstrated when cultures are appraised
based on the only befitting standard for judging a society or culture—the
extent to which its core values are life affirming or antilife. Prolife
culture recognizes and honors man’s nature as a rational being who needs
to discern and produce the circumstances that his survival and flourishing
require. Such a culture would promote reason, man’s natural rights, productivity,
science, and technology. Western culture, the prime example of this type
of culture, exhibits levels of freedom, opportunity, health, wealth, productivity,
innovation, satisfaction, comfort, and life expectancy unprecedented in
history.Western civilization represents
man at his best. It embodies the values that make life as a man possible—freedom,
reason, individualism, and man’s natural rights; capitalism, self-reliance,
and self-responsibility based on free will and achievement; the need for
limited, republican representative government and the rule of law; language,
art, and literature depicting man as efficacious in the world; and science
and technology, the rules of logic, and the idea of causality in a universe
governed by natural laws intelligible to man. These values, the values
of Western civilization, are values for all men cutting across ethnicity,
geography, and gender.